[Thread Prev][Thread Next][Index]

Re: [ferret_users] Wrong result in division



Dear Ryo and Russ,
 
Thank you for your reply. What other info would be helpful to diagnose the problem?
Here the ncdump output, I could also upload the file somewhere
 
dimensions:
time_counter = UNLIMITED ; // (1 currently)
bnds = 2 ;
lon = 180 ;
lat = 90 ;
lat_2 = 90 ;
num_ani = 10 ;
veget = 13 ;
variables:
float time_counter(time_counter) ;
time_counter:standard_name = "time" ;
time_counter:long_name = "Time axis" ;
time_counter:bounds = "time_counter_bnds" ;
time_counter:units = "seconds since 1901-01-01 00:00:00" ;
time_counter:calendar = "365_day" ;
time_counter:axis = "T" ;
double time_counter_bnds(time_counter, bnds) ;
double lon(lon) ;
lon:standard_name = "longitude" ;
lon:long_name = "longitude" ;
lon:units = "degrees_east" ;
lon:axis = "X" ;
double lat(lat) ;
lat:standard_name = "latitude" ;
lat:long_name = "latitude" ;
lat:units = "degrees_north" ;
lat:axis = "Y" ;
float lat_2(lat_2) ;
lat_2:standard_name = "latitude" ;
lat_2:long_name = "Latitude" ;
lat_2:units = "degrees_north" ;
lat_2:axis = "Y" ;
float veget(veget) ;
veget:long_name = "Vegetation types" ;
veget:units = "1" ;
veget:axis = "Z" ;
veget:name = "veget" ;
veget:standard_name = "model_level_number" ;
float var1(time_counter, num_ani, lat, lon) ;
var1:_FillValue = NaNf ;
var1:missing_value = NaNf ;
var1:cell_methods = "time_counter: mean" ;
float var2(time_counter, veget, lat_2, lon) ;
var2:units = "-" ;
var2:_FillValue = 9.96921e+36f ;
var2:missing_value = 9.96921e+36f ;
var2:cell_methods = "time: mean (interval: 1800 s)" ;
var2:online_operation = "average" ;
var2:interval_operation = "1800 s" ;
var2:interval_write = "1 d" ;
float var3(time_counter, veget, lat_2, lon) ;
var3:units = "gC/day/(m^2 tot)" ;
var3:_FillValue = 9.96921e+36f ;
var3:missing_value = 9.96921e+36f ;
var3:cell_methods = "time: mean (interval: 1800 s)" ;
var3:online_operation = "average" ;
var3:interval_operation = "1800 s" ;
var3:interval_write = "1 d" ;
 
Thanks!
 
Fabio
 
On 21/07/20 04:36, Ryo Furue wrote:
Russ and Fabio and all,
 
Sorry for my misguided comment.  Please forget about it.
 
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:04 AM Fiedler, Russell (O&A, Hobart) <Russell.Fiedler@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
 
 
I believe that Fabio is referring to the results for j=31 and j=35
at 35E. 0.049/0.039 is definitely not 5.54!
 
 
You are right!
 
My guess is that there may be some masking or regridding issues but
really more info is needed to diagnose this.
 
 
Yes.
 
Ryo
 

[Thread Prev][Thread Next][Index]